| Not in our neighborhood, further west. |
Fix Pacifica article, Planning Commission meeting, 8/1/16. Planning Commission Agenda, Monday 8/1/16, pdf pages 92.
Continued public hearing
252 Stanley Avenue 2-story residence extension and addition, Pedro Point.
New public hearing
136 Stanley Avenue, 2-story residence additions, Pedro Point.
Note photograph. Pedro Point llamas image by May A. from Yelp/Pedro Point Firehouse.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
28 comments:
Does our Planning Commission support Keeners' "managed retreat"? If so they should stop all improvements and deny any permits for work going on in West Sharp Park.
The Planning Commission neither supports or opposes concepts like managed retreat. They review proposed projects. They don't issue work permits. Learn something about the Planning Commission before you start trolling. BTW, it's not Keener's managed retreat. The term has been in use for at least 25 years and there are examples all over the world.
Actually the Planning Commission routinely considers the safety of all developments as they are currently planned and in the foreseeable future. This is why they often require extensive additional engineering on many projects for just that purpose. If Keener's take on sea level rise and "managed retreat" is correct and he successfully blocks all mitigation efforts, the Commission has a duty to deem all projects in West Sharp Park as intrinsically dangerous and should not approve one board/foot of construction.
Managed retreat is a concept, not a law.
Wow. Keener has that much power?
12:59
Can you name some of the "managed retreat" projects all over the world?
I'd really like to study up on this topic.
Examples of managed retreat? The Republican party? Trump's brain?
Yes. Keener has that much power. Get over it. He has right on his side. You have a beach front house and a fancy car. This is something you money lovers will never understand. Start packing or just pool your money and buy a fleet of yachts for you and your friends. You're going to need them.
6:25 if you really want to study this topic and want to know about examples of managed retreat around the world, you can start by googling. Duh.
9:26
So in other words you really have no knowledge of managed retreat going on in the world but you're willing to spout a philosophy that takes away human rights and will wreck Pacifica.
8:44 So in other words you were lying when you said you'd really like to study up on this topic. You already decided that managed retreat "takes away human rights." You don't know a damn thing about it and you're not interested in learning more.
8:44, managed retreat doesn't take away your human rights, just your home. The ocean will claim it within a generation regardless of your angst. The concept of Managed Retreat is an engineering issue, not a human rights issue.
Suffering the loss of your home, loss of your neighborhood, loss of local businesses, loss of affordable housing, loss of recreation and loss of access to the coast because of the zany ideology of some enviro elites seems like a loss of human rights to me. There is a plethora of contradicting data as well as many strategies known and as yet unknown that would make managed retreat unnecessary.
In Pacifica, "managed retreat" is fascism disguised as environmentalism.
You angry, selfish enviro-zealots should be ashamed of yourselves.
KARMA is nipping at your heals.
12:08 PM, it sounds like you have a better understanding of Ocean BLVD's future than any of us. Karma may be nipping at someone's heels but the largest ocean on earth is nipping at yours. The concept of managed retreat must include some sort of compensation... We've all watched the multiple Esplanade tragedies over the years, houses first and now apartment buildings being reclaimed by erosion. Make plans to CYA. Mother nature must be fed, and WSP is definitely on the menu. Council can't stop nature.
I'm for Taxpayer Rights. If your house is falling into the sea, I do not want my hard-earned tax dollars paying to protect your property. Real estate has risks. I don't want to pay for your risk. That's your problem, not mine. That is unless you're willing to pay my insurance and replace my house if it's destroyed in an earthquake.
101, apparently the rocks protecting Esplanade beach, and prior no rocks were not adequate to hold back the Pacific ocean. But, building a real sea wall north of the pier will protect Beach Blvd. That's what the scientific studies indicate. And science is not just anonymous NIMBY la la land "I made it up" commentary.
If you want Sharp Park neighborhood (old town) removed, it's only fair to conclude you and others of like mind are really not a good neighbors, and foster a limited civic vision which continues to afflict this community.
After all, this is a city, with roads, utilities, businesses (which limp along), and people. We all live here, and our regional area is metropolitan, not rural.
Want to live in the further outback? Far northern California or Alaska might be a good "neighborhood" for you.
Meantime, once again you've made the "no fix, no progress" case to never vote for NIMBY City Council candidates.
Please direct me to the scientific studies that show that building a sea wall north of the pier will protect Beach Blvd. I can't find anything on the internet.
If you faux-enviros had the ability to think critically you would realize that protecting West Sharp Park and the Sharp Park golf course is by far the cheapest (and most humane) avenue to pursue.
Abandoning the seawall and earthen berms near the golf course will lead to Pacifica's complete financial destruction. All of the built structures (including roads and infrastructure) will need to be knocked down, dug up and hauled away to a landfill. All of the property owners and businesses will need to be compensated for their loss. The lawsuits against Pacifica, John Keener and Bob Batallio for their willful destruction of West Sharp Park will be in the billions.
Moffat and Nichol Engineers, the putative experts on sea level rise hazard amelioration, has informed all of these potential defendants in a very public and documented meeting that there are reasonable and concrete strategies which can and should be taken to make West Sharp Park a safe community. Government officials have publicly stated that protective action should be taken.
Better start saving your money, you're gonna need it.
If you think you can successfully sue people for discussing ideas, you're out of your mind.
On the bright side, we're 63 on the best bay area suburbs! Totally obliterating Colma!
https://local.niche.com/rankings/suburbs/best-suburbs-for-families/m/san-francisco-metro-area/
8/2, 411 pm, here's the latest Coastal Hazards Technical Report for Beach Blvd, 6/2016, pdf pages 40. And a video of the Special Library City Council Meeting, 7/21/16. The meeting is 3 hours, 12 minutes, but you'll be able to skip to that Report.
There is also a Final Environmental Impact Report for redevelopment of Beach Blvd,7/2013, pdf pages 56 located in the City "Environmental Documents Archive."
Since you are having problems "searching the internet", next time try Google: City of Pacifica Beach Blvd Environmental Report.
$:57, The golf course and berm or San Francisco property. The fate of any seawall in CA rests with the Coastal Act. You must be hopping mad to think a single elected official can be sued for curcumstances that would not be in his jurisdiction. Save yourself some angst and move. Or, just wait and see what happens. Either way your anger is completely wasted on the wrong entity.
Your red herring about suing people for having discussions is laughable.
The faux-enviro NIMBY's have been using the strategy of delay, delay, appeal, appeal, redundant study sessions, lawsuits, etc. to break the back of every project that has ever tried to take hold in Pacifica. This has resulted in a city which is nearly flat broke and very vulnerable to disastrous events.
Now they are delaying action on sea wall construction and earthen berm repairs with selective, out of context and hyper-exaggerated predictions of inundation to scare the public into abandoning West Sharp Park and the golf course. The problem with them applying their delay tricks on this subject is, it will actually help make their dire predictions come true.
If and when that happens, they will all have very expensive days in court for their wanton and reckless abuse of authority and dissemination of very destructive propaganda in the face of learned facts to the contrary. Another trick they are using is telling government agencies and printing literature that claims the majority of Pacificans support their cause. This is an outright lie and will exponentially increase the size of the lawsuit judgements against them.
Keep it up NIMBY's. You're headed for a rude awakening.
I was looking for a scientific study that said "building a real sea wall north of the pier will protect Beach Blvd." That's not what the Coastal Hazards Technical Report or the Beach Blvd. EIR says. No wonder I couldn't find anything on the internet.
9:14 You get more surreal with each comment. You seem to think that "predictions of inundation" and "dissemination of propaganda" and "printing literature that claims the majority of Pacificans support their cause" are somehow actions that will result in "very expensive days in court." I don't know how you imagine the legal system works in this country but I think you need to get better informed about it.
1010, try help from the City Planning Department 738-7341. Beach Blvd environmental/scientific reports include the two (2) "sea" walls: 1) north of the pier, and 2) south of the pier, both discussed in the video and in linked reports-- yours to discover, and let us know your findings.
Storm damage this year, prior, and knowledge of the north "retaining wall" inadequacy is not breaking news. In a recent Fix Pacifica article/Mike Bell, 7/21/16, Mike describes the necessity to "build a real sea wall". The City understands issue, and the City Manager's Office is doing what it can to obtain as much government funding for this project as possible.
1010, for whatever reasons, you've created your own artificial barriers to understanding the ocean's affect on Beach Blvd and West Sharp Park area-- priceless!
Think! Do NIMBIES really believe wiping out West Sharp Park neighborhood is an eco-justified plan? If that's true, how stupid is that?
We live in the modern era when a real sea wall can be built. And in this instance, building a real sea wall infrastructure is the solution.
I don't know if building a sea wall will save Patheticia, but it sure as hell will keep the illegal immigrants out!
Anybody who thinks that building a new seawall north of the pier will keep the ocean from beating the crap out of that north section of Beach Blvd. is in denial of reality. Take a walk there at a king tide with winter storm surf pounding the buildings on the east side of the street and explain how a new wall is going to keep the sea from doing that.
Post a Comment